[Test-Equipment] HP-436A Power Meter

[John Miles]

> I appreciate the analog vs. digital comments.  I prefer the moving
> needle to a digital readout in most cases.  Dino said that the real
> issue with the '436 is the cost/availability of the power sensors and
> cables, often far exceeding the cost of the meter unit itself.  Much
> care has to be taken with purchasing used sensors; "...there are lots
> of blown power sensors out there..."
>
> But one thing confuses me a bit...seems both the '436 and 435 use the
> same 84XX series power sensors?  Looking at ebay histories (which has
> its own problems)  the '435 power meter itself seems to go for
> somewhat less, but the same issues remain for the power sensors, i.e.
> cost and availability?  Lots (by comparison) of meters for sale, very
> few sensors.

They use the same HP 84xx sensors.  Plenty of them on the 'Bay, along with
cables (HP 11730A).

Also, the 436 does have an (uncalibrated) analog meter for quick-response
readings.

The 436 is the better choice when it comes to power meters, if only because
of the relative-dB mode.  I use that feature all the time; it's much easier
than mentally subtracting needle positions.

For analog power meters, the Wavetek 1034A is hard to beat.  It's portable
(battery-operated), has a diode (not thermistor) sensor that covers 10 MHz
to 18 GHz in one go, and is usually very inexpensive on eBay.

-- john KE5FX


>